My Mother's Ishmael: Working With Mother Cultures

This helps implement the idea there is an anthropocentric view for not torturing animals for it can lead to harm with humans. Premise 4 shows that any suffering is characterized as unnecessary. Premise 5 believes all animal for foods use unnecessary suffering, which is a false premise for not all use suffering on animals to make food. An example would be a slaughter house for cows that use euthanasia to kill them to avoid suffering. The conclusion then states human consumption of any products is justified.

In conclusion , Rule Utilitarianism would tend to say that human cloning should be banned worldwide. Scientists and Physicists should practice lawful research and experiments, that will help improve people’s lives. They should practice integrity, honesty, and restraint in their experiments. Their goal should not be to clone humans, but to better understand the causes of diseases, and try to create cures. No person should be made to suffer for their experiments.

Ethical Dilemma Something that western society has always put an emphasis on autonomy of the individual. The purpose of physician assisted suicide being legalized is to put an emphasis on the individual and their wishes. Immanuel Kant believed that humans were born with a natural instinct of right and wrong. According to Kant, the act of suicide to escape a difficult situation will be ruled immoral (Friend, 2011). The end would defy self-love and self-preservation so Kant permits no exceptions because the act of killing will never become a universal law of nature (Friend, 2011).

During the seminar, I voted for “yes.” I believe that the preservation of human life is worth the cost of the clones’ lives. I feel that since the clones can not reproduce and lack the capability to prolong the human race; they have an insignificant purpose. If humans can reproduce, they deserve to have their lives prolonged for the sake of the preservation of human life. Taking the lives of innocent lives (clones) is an inhumane thing to do, but as we recently discussed from Macbeth, in order to get what you want, you must take certain actions or measures to get it. What the guardians, Miss Emily and Madame wanted was to preserve human life and they achieved that, but they had to take certain measures in the process.

For instance, if we participate in the Buy Nothing Day, we are contributing to the conservation of the Earth. In addition, he guarantees that living without the need to use money is possible because he has successfully achieved this challenge. The writer mentions a possible different point of view when he says “Reducing our consumption, we are told, would be terrible for the rampaging beast known only as The Economy.” However, he clarifies that this statement is nothing more than a confusion or strategy made by politicians and economists to increase sales. His argument is positional because he demonstrates his clear position about an issue he cares about. He provides different reasons why reducing expenses is vital.

The benefits of fracking are short-term and the consequences long term. The shortsightedness of the gas corporations blinds them to the benefits of flaring. It is unacceptable that fracking operations continue to destroy this earth and its inhabitants. Greed must not get in the way of insuring the environment is preserved for the generations to come. The answer to this problem is simple; fracking must stop and flaring must take its

Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2606) is amended— (1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ‘‘(as identified by the Administrator without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors)’’ after ‘‘from the unreasonable risk’’; and (2) in subsection (f), by inserting ‘‘, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors’’ after ‘‘widespread injury to health or the environment’’. (The House of Representatives 1992) This revision protected Monsanto for being liable for any damages caused to the environment from the PCBs. Monsanto is the only one to blame for this situation because they are the only company that made PCBs. The House of Representatives and Monsanto claim that this provision was not a favor.

Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), is ambiguously against GMOs. I passionately agree with Jeffrey Smith on his stance against GMOs. Genetically modified organisms should not be put into our foods because of the negative effects on the environment, corruptive corporate control over what we eat, and because of the dangerous health risks Without a doubt, genetically modified organisms are negatively affecting the environment. While I acknowledge that others may feel differently about GMOs affecting the environment, facts demonstrate that GMO producing crops are taking a toll on farmland. According to Jeffrey Smith from the Institute for Responsible Technology, pollen that contains genetically modified organisms can contaminate nearby crops.

Not surprisingly, Euthanasia is going against every single section of this oath. To begin, a dietary regimen is meant to restore health. Denying or purposely not giving them food to “end their suffering” could never more strongly go against this. Secondly, it says that they will do no harm or injustice to them. There is no justice in killing and it only creates harm.

If the population wants to survive, stop killing the food people eat, everything is traced to water. Lastly, "Once this water is polluted with animal waste, polluted with antibiotics, hormones and bacteria that it cannot be returned to the water system" (One Green Planet). Yet some of it still gets in the system, there is no good way to get rid of that water so why create it at all. Farmers should take better care of the water they pollute and what they do with it